Why the hell are we having Muslim hearings?

[High_Gravity]

Why are they having hearings on the religion of peace?

 

[High_Gravity]

You know.......if you're gonna single out someone who uses religion for terrorist activities, then I've got one quick question...........

Where the fuck are the hearings on Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Oh wait.......forgot......."Christians" are the peaceful ones, right?

The Westboro church are disgusting pigs but they play within the rules, they don't use violence against people or blow things up. I am not saying I agree with them I fucking hate them, but I don't have to worry about a Westboro Church Member blowing up me and my family at a mall.

 

[Hot Wire]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ravi]

You know.......if you're gonna single out someone who uses religion for terrorist activities, then I've got one quick question...........

Where the fuck are the hearings on Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Oh wait.......forgot......."Christians" are the peaceful ones, right?

The Westboro church are disgusting pigs but they play within the rules, they don't use violence against people or blow things up. I am not saying I agree with them I fucking hate them, but I don't have to worry about a Westboro Church Member blowing up me and my family at a mall.

No, but his point is valid. Maybe a better analogy would be white supremacists...they've been in the news lately, in fact I think one tried to blow up a MLK parade. Why aren't we having hearings on them?

 

[Sheldon]

These hearings are an opportunity for the american people to hear from and about true muslims and giving americans the opportunity to see that the majority of muslims are not like those who hijacked their religion in the name of terrorism.

It would be nice if that was the case, and I actually hope it's what ends up happening here. However I don't think this is going to be a Dr Phil "let me listen to your feelings" session. It's a hearing that has started with an accusation, and that's usually not a good way to start the conversation.

This is just going to be a waste of time, imo. The people who think that all or most Muslims are secretly terrorist sympathizers, aren't going to allow their world view to be shattered by a congressional hearing.

 

[gekaap]

I dont think so at all.

The fact is that the majority of terrorist activities have been carried out by people who claim Islam as their faith. This fact has led many to do what you say above and paint all muslims as terrorists.

These hearings are an opportunity for the american people to hear from and about true muslims and giving americans the opportunity to see that the majority of muslims are not like those who hijacked their religion in the name of terrorism.

Really? So sure about that? Was Tim McVeigh a Muslim? How many Muslims in the US bomb abortion clinics? How about Scott Roeder? How many fanatical ALF and ELF members are Muslims? Members of Alpha 66? The BLA? I bet the KKK is a bunch of Muslims, right?

 

[syrenn]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

I believe it is about steeping past the PC bullshit of not discussing what is real. Bravo for them.

I believe it is also about discussing the radicalization of the youth involved with certain mosques and imans (spelling)

If this country does not start a conversation about what is going on with radicalized islam within this country it will be far to late by the time they do play their hands.

 

[rightwinger]

It is simple

Republicans want you to fear the Muslim so that you will ignore rightwing extremists

 

[bodecea]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How nice....tho you are slightly outnumbered if they all hate you the same way.

 

[gekaap]

Maybe a better analogy would be white supremacists...they've been in the news lately, in fact I think one tried to blow up a MLK parade. Why aren't we having hearings on them?

I'd say that white supremacists, as an entire class, are rejected by the rest of society. We don't afford any room for the one's who "play nice." The whole lot is dismissed as lunatic and fanatical. But Muslims, on the other hand, are not generally lunatic fanatics. The entire class is being inaccurately defined based on the actions and statements of a small group of radicals who happen to be Muslim. Now, I'm not defending either side in all of this. Just pointing out the difference in scenario.

 

[VaYank5150]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

The GOP had and still have no ideas on how to turn around the economy or help to create jobs, so since taking back the House, they have orchestrated a number of initiatives that they and the Tea Party feel are much more important, such as redefining the defition of rape. Now, they have moved onto fear mongering and singling out a group based on their religious beliefs. I am REALLY starting to wonder if any of them remember why our founding fathers came here in the first place.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is simple

Republicans want you to fear the Muslim so that you will ignore rightwing extremists

Yep. Scare 'em bad with something like Islam and they'll ignore that idiot Walker.

 

[Ravi]

Maybe a better analogy would be white supremacists...they've been in the news lately, in fact I think one tried to blow up a MLK parade. Why aren't we having hearings on them?

I'd say that white supremacists, as an entire class, are rejected by the rest of society. We don't afford any room for the one's who "play nice." The whole lot is dismissed as lunatic and fanatical. But Muslims, on the other hand, are not generally lunatic fanatics. The entire class is being inaccurately defined based on the actions and statements of a small group of radicals who happen to be Muslim. Now, I'm not defending either side in all of this. Just pointing out the difference in scenario.

But don't people get enticed into being violent supremacists in much the same way others get enticed into being terrorists? I'm not really seeing a difference unless your point is that we are having these hearings in an effort to make more people suspicious of Muslims.

 

[Flopper]

Below is my opinion on how this issue should be addressed:

TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)

Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.

What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.

I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.

By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens’ due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.

Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers’ resources:

1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.

2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.

3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).

Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:

[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally

[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.

Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).

EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates’ destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.

Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of “Constitutional freedoms” to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.

I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas

I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute

the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.

Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:

A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)

[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]

Sounds like you want to piss off everybody. Anytime you have a house committee investigating some segment of the population, it turns into a witch hunt. It's just the nature of the beast. If the committee just has intelligent people testifying and saying the same old things we have heard hundreds of times, they won't get the media attention and the committee will be thought of as a waste. To justify it's existence the committee has to uncover something and bring it to public attention. The end result will most likely be less trust among both Muslim and the Non-Muslims, something we can ill afford. Over 40% to 50% of all Islamic terrorist arrests are due to tips and help from the Islamic community.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

I think that they are trying to help the country have a better understanding of muslim viewpoints and culture with the hearings in order to gain a better understanding of the religion of choice of the majority of modern day terrorists.

do you mean to say they are trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists? If so, how counterproductive.

All muslims are terrorists - the same way the Catholics were when they were chopping off heads and burning people at the stake for not being a Catholic. The same way just about every major religion has murdered people who did not believe and come around to their own way of thinking. The only people who are maybe "safe" are the people who claim to be atheists and they are only making that claim so they don't get whacked by a religion that they don't belong to.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Flopper: My point is to focus on the protection of democratic due process.
That is general across the board. So it would not involve targeting any group including the Muslims. The people who are already law-abiding would LOVE to have more enforcement of due process and the redressing of grievances. Only people who seek to abuse civil laws to hide behind what they do would be afraid of having to face consequences for wrongs.

Below is my opinion on how this issue should be addressed:

TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)

Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.

What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.

I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.

By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens’ due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.

Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers’ resources:

1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.

2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.

3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).

Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:

[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally

[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.

Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).

EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates’ destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.

Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of “Constitutional freedoms” to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.

I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas

I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute

the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.

Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:

A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)

[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]

Sounds like you want to piss off everybody. Anytime you have a house committee investigating some segment of the population, it turns into a witch hunt. It's just the nature of the beast. If the committee just has intelligent people testifying and saying the same old things we have heard hundreds of times, they won't get the media attention and the committee will be thought of as a waste. To justify it's existence the committee has to uncover something and bring it to public attention. The end result will most likely be less trust among both Muslim and the Non-Muslims, something we can ill afford. Over 40% to 50% of all Islamic terrorist arrests are due to tips and help from the Islamic community.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?

And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???

Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How nice....tho you are slightly outnumbered if they all hate you the same way.

The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has said: "The faith of a believer is never complete until his love is for Allah's sake and his hatred is for Allah's sake". And he also said: "Love for Allah and love for His enemy can never co-exist in the heart of a believer".

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

All muslims are terrorists - the same way the Catholics were when they were chopping off heads and burning people at the stake for not being a Catholic. The same way just about every major religion has murdered people who did not believe and come around to their own way of thinking. The only people who are maybe "safe" are the people who claim to be atheists and they are only making that claim so they don't get whacked by a religion that they don't belong to.

Shirk is worse than Killing

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

[وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ]

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

[وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ]

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) "Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.''

 

[Bootneck]

So I guess the moral of the thread is that human rights violations and treason are A-OK w/Ravi so long as Muslims are doing it.

Thanks, Rav!

ROFL! Logical Fallacies number 25: STRAW MAN.

Wonderful to watch Allie making an arse of herself accidentally. It's like watching her pick her nose! That is what you said, isn't it!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/158255-logical-fallacies.html

 

[emilynghiem]

Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How nice....tho you are slightly outnumbered if they all hate you the same way.

The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has said: "The faith of a believer is never complete until his love is for Allah's sake and his hatred is for Allah's sake". And he also said: "Love for Allah and love for His enemy can never co-exist in the heart of a believer".

Dear Mr. F:
You can hate injustice and hate conflicts, and not hate people.
If all conflicts were resolved, then no Jihadists would abuse any teaching that says "in case of controversy or contradiction" then the latter teaching of Mohammed takes precedent.

If Muslims are called to respect and receive "all sent by God" part of the problem is where some followers do not respect Constitutional laws of democracy as given by God.

If they did, we would resolve all matters in peace by redressing grievances civilly.
That is the way of the peaceful Muslims I know.

The Jihadists lose faith that differences can be resolved, assume the others to be infidels, and start invoking military commands that Mohammed issued for wartime.

The only way to prevent such judgments and executions of the law is to resolve all conflicts to prevent there from being any differences that would be taken as infidelity.

If people cannot agree, they can practice their laws unto themselves, but not impose them on others. That is a natural law that is given by God. Until we agree on this, that is why the world is at war right now. Not just Jihadists, but every group I have seen struggle with this issue, which is the meaning of Jihad - the internal spiritual battle for justice and truth.